8 



man's commitment to address issues that the bill does not yet cover 

 but which, as I have already indicated, are extremely important to 

 those who I represent. These include area-of-origin rights and rec- 

 reational uses. In my conversations with the Chairman, you have 

 assured me that both these issues will be given utmost consider- 

 ation by the committee. 



In conclusion, I wish to thank the Chairman and the committee 

 again for the great work you have done thus far on this bill. I look 

 forward to working closely with you in the weeks ahead to complete 

 our work and ultimately pass this legislation through the House. 

 Mr. Chairman, in addition to my written remarks, I wish to submit 

 for the record a number of statements prepared by county and local 

 officials in my district. Thank you. 

 [Statements of officials may be found at end of hearing.] 

 Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Bill Thomas 

 from California. 



STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Thomas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

 the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1906, and I. would ask that my 

 written testimony be made a part of the record in its entirety. 



I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey's testimony based on 

 his four or five years of involvement on this issue. I have been in 

 California over 50 years. I have been in the San Joaquin Valley 

 over 25 years. I have represented people in that area for over 16 

 years, and for the last eight months or so, I have been working 

 with Central Valley Project water users trying to identify, develop 

 solutions to problems that have arisen as a consequence of the so- 

 called Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. And I want 

 to for just a couple of minutes shed some light on what H.R. 1906 

 is truly about and dispel some of the misinformation that is being 

 circulated. 



In contrast to the revisionist history one hears from certain in- 

 terest groups and even members, the 1992 Act was not some widely 

 accepted, wildly popular piece of legislation. It wasn't something 

 that Califomians had a significant amount of input in. The facts 

 reveal a good deal of old-fashioned legislative arm twisting, as you 

 might expect. 



The 1992 Act had project authorizations galore. It had projects 

 for states like Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota. All 

 of them had an interest in making sure that that bill passed be- 

 cause it was structured for that purpose. Indian water right dis- 

 putes were resolved in that Act. The National Historic Preservation 

 Act was amended by the bill. Who wants to vote against something 

 like that? 



The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 for Califor- 

 nia was squirreled away in the 34th title of a bill that few felt they 

 had time to review. Remember, it was October 5, 1992. People 

 wanted to get away, break that session, and go home for the elec- 

 tion. 



Also contrary to what you may hear from special interest groups 

 outside the San Joaquin Valley, H.R. 1906 is not a travesty of the 

 legislative process. The bill itself reflects the ideas and interests of 



